CivPro

Rules on Summary Procedure

I.

Applicability

Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the
following cases falling within their jurisdiction:

A. Civil Cases:

(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00).

(2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does
not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

Cases:

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

Key terms:

- P1908.00
- June 17, 1948 - Judiciary Act of 1948

Doctrine: A party may be barred from raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction or jurisdiction may be
waived on the ground of estoppel by laches. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.

Guide:

- Filed before the CFI of Cebu on July 19, 1948 barely one month after the effectivity of RA 296 or
the Judiciary Act of 1948 that placed the original exclusive jurisdiction on inferior courts all civil
actions where the value of the subject-matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed
P2000.00, exclusive of interest and costs (Sec. 88 of RA 296).
- Lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost
fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered may no longer be raised for
being barred by laches.
 - Laches is "failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it."

Francel Realty vs. CA

Doctrine: It is important to first determine whether the MTC has jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint.
For if it has no jurisdiction then the award of damages made by it in its decision is indeed without any
basis. It is only if the MTC has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action that it is necessary to
determine the correctness of the award of damages, including attorney’s fees.

Calimlim vs. Ramirez

Doctrine: The point simply is that when a party commits error in filing his suit or proceeding in a court
that lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, such act may not at once be deemed sufficient
basis of estoppel. It could have been the result of an honest mistake, or of divergent interpretations of
doubtful legal provisions.

Guide:

- The petitioners instituted Civil Case No. SCC-180 only two and a half years after the dismissal of
their petition in LRC Record No. 39492 (requesting the cancellation of the title of Independent
Mercantile Corporation because the same was obtained erroneously through the Provincial
Sheriff’s fault).
- If any fault is to be imputed to a party taking such course of action, part of the blame should be
placed on the court which shall entertain the suit, thereby lulling the parties into believing that
they pursued their remedies in the correct forum.